Helping companies navigate the realities of business agility and not just be technically agile! Regular content on Scrum, Agility, & DevOps!
Would you ever hire a Junior CISO or a Junior Financial Director? Of course not. These positions, by definition, require demonstrated mastery of their respective domains, alongside the authority and responsibility to enact meaningful change. The same should be true of a Scrum Master. The idea of a “junior” Scrum Master is a fallacy. The Scrum Master is not an entry-level position, nor is it something that should be handed out as a career stepping stone. A Scrum Master should be born fully formed, emerging from the Scrum Team as a practitioner who has already demonstrated technical mastery, business mastery, and organisational evolutionary mastery. They should be elevated by the team, not assigned by management.
Testing in production, is about structured, observable releases that allow for fast feedback, controlled exposure, and rapid course correction, ensuring quality without sacrificing speed. One such paradigm shift in software delivery is audience-based deployment.
Before delivery, all ideas and strategies remain theoretical. They are assumptions - educated guesses that may or may not align with actual needs or expectations. Delivery is the only mechanism through which these assumptions are validated, transforming theory into tangible outcomes that can be measured, tested, and improved.
The traditional Dev → Test → Staging → Production model is flawed, leading to unnecessary complexity and reinforcing outdated software delivery patterns. This breakdown explains why branch promotion is a failure mode, why GitHub Flow and Release Flow are reasonable alternatives, and why Git Flow belongs in the bin.
As a social technology, Scrum has remained steadfast in its ethos for over 32 years, enabling teams to generate value through adaptive solutions to complex problems. Yet, a subtle distinction in its guidance often trips up practitioners - Scrum explicitly mandates a Done Increment but implicitly mandates Delivery. This distinction, though subtle, holds profound implications in a modern context where DevOps has reshaped the landscape of software delivery.
Ultimately, the Scrum Master is accountable for the Scrum Team’s success. This includes product delivery, product success, Sprint outcomes, the team’s ability, and ensuring the team has the resources, skills, and ethos needed to succeed. While the entire Scrum Team shares accountability for delivery, the Scrum Master’s role is to create the conditions for effective delivery and continuous improvement. Delivery is the minimum bar for effectiveness—without it, the team cannot measure or realise value. Without delivery, there is no increment, no feedback, and no way to empirically assess value. A Scrum Team that delivers without value is ineffective but still functional. A Scrum Team that fails to deliver anything cannot be considered effective under any measure.
Many organisations attempt to adopt Lean practices without fully understanding their implications in software development. This often leads to excessive handoffs, which fragment communication and reduce agility. Here’s the kicker: handoffs are not Lean, Agile, or DevOps. They are an anti-pattern that introduces waste, increases cycle time, and makes collaboration difficult.
In countless teams, there’s a recurring mix-up between “what” we’re building, “how” it aligns with business objectives, and the objective quality criteria by which it should be measured. The result? Chaos masquerading as agility. To clear the air: in Scrum, the “what” and “how” are driven by Product and Sprint Goals. These provide directional clarity but remain inherently subjective—a north star guiding your path, not a litmus test of quality.
As a DevOps consultant, Agile consultant, and trainer, I’ve worked with hundreds of companies to improve their software product development. It’s astonishing how many Scrum Masters lack even a basic understanding of Scrum, let alone the expertise required to support the teams they work with.
In organizational development and team dynamics, Agile (as the Agile Manifesto delineates) and Scrum (as the Scrum Guide outlines) guide teams not by solving their problems but by illuminating the issues that demand attention. These frameworks aim to identify and spotlight the challenges within a team or organization’s processes, effectively saying, “This is wrong, go fix it!” when a team struggles to produce a working product due to various obstacles. These are clear signals!
In my journey of delivering an immersive Product Development Mentor Program over the last eight weeks, a compelling narrative unfolded that beautifully illustrates the essence and true strength of Scrum. This story, rooted in the practical application of Scrum through Minecraft, unveils the depth of adaptability and resilience that Scrum can foster within a team.
The Boards in Azure DevOps are a powerful tool that your teams can leverage to enable transparent visualization of the current state of value delivery. However, the inclusion of Blocked columns can stealthily erode the very foundations of efficiency these boards are meant to uphold. By obfuscating the state of work-in-progress and breeding a culture of hands-off responsibility, Blocked columns can become the silent saboteurs in your workflow.
This week, I participated in a Scrum.org Webinar hosted by Sabrina Love (Scrum.org Product Owner) as well as my colleagues, Joanna Płaskonka, Ph.D. and Alex Ballarin to discuss the state of learning and how immersive learning is the future of training.
In the rich tapestry of ancient Greek philosophy, the concept of the seven deadly sins stands out as a profound exploration of human nature and morality. Deeply rooted in Greek thought, these sins were not seen as fleeting transgressions. Instead, they were formidable obstacles, barriers between individuals and a virtuous, fulfilling life.
Many teams grapple with the intricacies of Scrum, and one of the most pivotal components is the Sprint Goal. It’s not just a fleeting thought or a mere list of tasks; it’s a commitment, a promise, and a clear direction.
The Definition of Done (DoD) is a sacrosanct measure of quality, ensuring that every piece of work meets the standards necessary for release. On the other hand, acceptance criteria focus on the work’s content. Merging the two can risk the integrity of a working, usable product. This article delves into the nuances of maintaining the sanctity of the DoD while ensuring the delivery of valuable increments.
Over the past decade, a recurring query has been echoing in my ears: “How can we normalise Story Points across teams so that we can look across and maybe compare teams?” It’s high time we address this.
Software Development is not just a systematic process but a dynamic interplay of critical work that shapes the progress of your product. A Scrum team’s work can be classified into Sprint work and Refinement. To steer your Scrum Team towards success, it’s essential to understand, manage, and balance these two types of work. This article dives deep into the heart of Scrum team operations, offering clear-cut strategies and innovative visualisation techniques to help you understand and manage your Sprint work and Refinement processes effectively. Decode the intricacies of Scrum teamwork and unlock the path to achieving your product goals with increased efficiency.
As I sit here, sipping my morning cup of tea, I ponder the current state of organisational agility. I’ve been in this game long enough to have seen the rise and fall of various methodologies, each promising to be the silver bullet that will solve all of an organisation’s woes. I was initially an ALM consultant, then DevOps. But, as I’ve often found, the reality is far from the promise.
As someone who has spent a fair amount of time in the trenches of product development, I’ve realised that the language we use to describe our work can profoundly shape our approach to it. One term that I believe has been misused and misunderstood to the point of causing more harm than good is “User Stories”.
In the realm of product development, crafting an efficient Product Backlog is an endeavour akin to sculpting a masterpiece. Just as sculptors chisel away the excess marble to reveal the form within, product managers must carefully mould their backlog, ensuring it’s a lean inventory that reflects the unrealized value of the product. The Product Backlog must encapsulate our current aspirations for the product while being transparent and understandable to all stakeholders. It’s a living artefact that dynamically evolves with the product. However, we must also resist the temptation to create an overwhelming catalogue that loses its sharpness and becomes a weight dangling around the team’s neck.
The Product Backlog is a critical asset in Agile product development; it represents a dynamic lean inventory of everything the product needs. For those of us navigating the multifaceted landscape of product development, there is often an impulse to seek an ideal structure for the Product Backlog. The familiar hierarchy of Initiative->Epic->Feature->User Story->Task/Bug is a common schema. However, before embracing this structure as a silver bullet, it’s imperative to critically evaluate the implications of imposing a hierarchy on the Product Backlog and to recognize the nuanced dynamics of working in complex environments. In this article, I will examine the delicate interplay between Product Backlog management and the intrinsic nature of complex systems.
As a seasoned Agile consultant, I find myself amidst conversations about the mechanics of a successful Agile project. Today, I focus on an essential yet often underappreciated aspect - the Product Backlog. A well-ordered Product Backlog that is comprehensible to all stakeholders is a critical beacon that illuminates the path to a transparent future.
In software development, an increasingly prevalent phenomenon is the adoption of agile methodologies, akin to individuals embarking on fitness journeys through gym memberships. However, a striking parallel between the two realms can be drawn – the misuse and under-utilization of the tools at disposal. The essence of this analogy reflects a more fundamental notion: the gap between intention and implementation.
In light of the importance professional teams place on delivering usable, working products, I find myself compelled to address the woes that befall teams that need to adhere to this crucial tenet. We understand the need for working products; now, let us dissect the perils of straying from this righteous path.
It baffles me how some agile teams, who claim to be the pioneers of modernity, are living in archaic times where usable working products are as rare as unicorns! Just a heads-up, my dear agile practitioners: the linchpin of Agile is a Usable Working Product. Yes, you read it right!
As the software development landscape evolves, evaluating the time-tested traditional project management strategies alongside the burgeoning agile methodologies is essential. The central tenet I would like to explore today is comparing using usable working products as a risk mitigation strategy in Agile with the elaborate documentation characteristic of traditional project management.
Under the ruthless canopy of the red market, I find myself staring at the bloated behemoth of an Alpha organisation, huffing and puffing in a vain attempt to keep up with the frenzied pace of the modern world. The Alpha model, once a paragon of order and efficiency in the leisurely blue market era, has now morphed into a lumbering dinosaur, with its hierarchical structures and rigid command and control systems looking out of place in the high-speed, unpredictable red markets.
As we progress deeper into the dynamic landscape of the 21st century, our long-established organisations, born of the Industrial Age and infused with a DNA of strict command and control, stand on shaky ground. These organisations strut with command-and-control bravado, erecting clear hierarchies in their stable inert markets where bureaucracy reigns supreme. However, they are feeling the tremors of a rapidly evolving, technologically charged dynamic markets and are plagued by sluggish responses and missed opportunities, which are their Achilles heel in these new fast-paced markets. Not since the 1970s has the classic hierarchical model, rooted in the stagnant waters of stable markets, been a viable proposition for companies seeking to thrive in an era of unprecedented change and unpredictability. Clearly, we cannot continue to coat deep-seated hierarchical practices with a thin veneer of modern innovation and expect sustainable transformation.
Business Leaders face a key challenge when scaling their organisations effectively while maintaining the distinctiveness that made us successful in the first place. Many frameworks and methodologies, such as Scaled Agile Framework (SAFe) or the Spotify Model, promise a structured approach to scaling, but do they genuinely fit our unique needs? In this post, I aim to highlight the importance of creating our own scaling practices, highlighting that successful commercial software organizations have thrived by embracing their distinctiveness rather than adopting standardized approaches.
If you've made it this far, it's worth connecting with our principal consultant and coach, Martin Hinshelwood, for a 30-minute 'ask me anything' call.
We partner with businesses across diverse industries, including finance, insurance, healthcare, pharmaceuticals, technology, engineering, transportation, hospitality, entertainment, legal, government, and military sectors.
CR2